Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

Last.FM · by **Corrian** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:49 pm

San Lumen wrote:Or if the Electoral college stopped Trumo or we had a system like the every other country that elects its President. The person with the most votes wins. What a incredible concept i know.

Seriously, you've been pointed out in being wrong countless times already on the "Every other country that elects its President" thing.

by **The Two Jerseys** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:49 pm

So after all this hullabaloo, more faithless electors defect from Hillary than from Trump?

That is fucking priceless!

by **Narintia** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:53 pm

The Two Jerseys wrote:So after all this hullabaloo, more faithless electors defect from Hillary than from Trump?

That is fucking priceless!

are you kidding me LOL

by **Arlenton** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:53 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Corrian wrote:I got a future plan now: Get a candidate that doesn't just take the rust belt for granted by being arrogant and expecting they'll just have the states. She'd literally have won if they actually bothered there. But noope, they didn't. Even when they blatantly asked for help campaigning there.

We'd have President Clinton right now if Democrats hadn't become incompetent, arrogant campaigners. Let losing to Trump be a lesson to them in the future to not take anything for granted.

Or if the Electoral college stopped Trumo or we had a system like the every other country that elects its President. The person with the most votes wins. What a incredible concept i know.

In the UK, a party can get only 36% of the vote and get a majority government. Also in the UK, a party can get 12% of the vote and only win one seat, while in the same election have another party get only 4% of the vote and get 56 seats. Every country has issues like this.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:55 pm

The Two Jerseys wrote:So after all this hullabaloo, more faithless electors defect from Hillary than from Trump?

That is fucking priceless!

Did they really? Where'd you see that?

Last.FM · by **Corrian** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:55 pm

The Two Jerseys wrote:So after all this hullabaloo, more faithless electors defect from Hillary than from Trump?

That is fucking priceless!

I think the Clinton ones were trying to push for a compromise candidate.

They didn't go for it, clearly.

by **The Two Jerseys** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:56 pm

Narintia wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:So after all this hullabaloo, more faithless electors defect from Hillary than from Trump?

That is fucking priceless!

are you kidding me LOL

Yeah, four from Washington defected from Hillary's camp, while Trump only lost two from Texas.

by **Arlenton** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:56 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:So after all this hullabaloo, more faithless electors defect from Hillary than from Trump?

That is fucking priceless!

Did they really? Where'd you see that?

4 Dem electors in WA voted for someone else, while only 2 Rep electors in TX voted for someone else.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:58 pm

Arlenton wrote:
The Alexanderians wrote:Did they really? Where'd you see that?

4 Dem electors in WA voted for someone else, while only 2 Rep electors in TX voted for someone else.

Not what I asked but I'll take it at face anyway

by **The Two Jerseys** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:58 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:So after all this hullabaloo, more faithless electors defect from Hillary than from Trump?

That is fucking priceless!

Did they really? Where'd you see that?

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/four-washington-electors-break-ranks-and-dont-vote-for-clinton/
It's also in the Wikipedia article for the 2016 election.

by **Arlenton** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:59 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
Arlenton wrote:4 Dem electors in WA voted for someone else, while only 2 Rep electors in TX voted for someone else.

Not what I asked but I'll take it at face anyway

Just "believe me."

by **Greater Carloso** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:04 pm

Well thats absolutely priceless.

I guess that renders this particular thread obselete!

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:07 pm

Greater Carloso wrote:Well thats absolutely priceless.

I guess that renders this particular thread obselete!

And yet it'll keep going for days more if the posting of today is anything to go off

by **The Two Jerseys** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:09 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
Greater Carloso wrote:Well thats absolutely priceless.

I guess that renders this particular thread obselete!

And yet it'll keep going for days more if the posting of today is anything to go off

Gotta give everyone a day or two to get the "You get NOTHING! You LOSE! Good DAY, sir!" out of their system.

by **Waldriech** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:14 pm

XD, didn't happen my Liberal Friends! PS, Spotted Eagle for President 2016!

by **New Scario** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:30 pm

These protestors absolutely make me laugh, I'll tell ya.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:31 pm

New Scario wrote:These protestors absolutely make me laugh, I'll tell ya.

Yes, how dare they exercise their first amendment rights.

by **New Scario** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:32 pm

Vassenor wrote:
New Scario wrote:These protestors absolutely make me laugh, I'll tell ya.

Yes, how dare they exercise their first amendment rights.

I love how you are implying I'm laughing at them protesting.

I'm laughing because their arguments are foolish and downright unintelligent and hypocritical.

by **North Calaveras** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:32 pm

Vassenor wrote:
New Scario wrote:These protestors absolutely make me laugh, I'll tell ya.

Yes, how dare they exercise their first amendment rights.

I think he finds it funny how fucking ridiculous they look...and I agree, nothing against the 1st amendment, they still look like cry babies.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:37 pm

North Calaveras wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Yes, how dare they exercise their first amendment rights.

I think he finds it funny how fucking ridiculous they look...and I agree, nothing against the 1st amendment, they still look like cry babies.

You're right. They should act like republicans and dream up ways that he's ineligible for office based on utter fantasy or getting their congresscritter to be as obstructionist as possible to screw the whole country over.

Last.FM · by **Corrian** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:39 pm

North Calaveras wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Yes, how dare they exercise their first amendment rights.

I think he finds it funny how fucking ridiculous they look...and I agree, nothing against the 1st amendment, they still look like cry babies.

Too bad I can't go into an alternate reality and watch the crybaby Trump supporters if she had won.

by **Romalae** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:42 pm

Corrian wrote:
North Calaveras wrote:
I think he finds it funny how fucking ridiculous they look...and I agree, nothing against the 1st amendment, they still look like cry babies.

Too bad I can't go into an alternate reality and watch the crybaby Trump supporters if she had won.

Or if he had won the popular vote and lost the EC. I can only imagine.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:43 pm

Romalae wrote:
Corrian wrote:Too bad I can't go into an alternate reality and watch the crybaby Trump supporters if she had won.

Or if he had won the popular vote and lost the EC. I can only imagine.

Presumably he'd revive the "any person who wins the presidency without winning the popular vote must immediately be removed from office" spiel he was screaming in 2012 then quietly buried when he did just that.

by **North Calaveras** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:44 pm

the triggering is strong here...

by **Vassenor** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:47 pm

North Calaveras wrote:the triggering is strong here...

You're right. Lots of people getting irrationally angry over people not considering this the greatest moment in American history.

Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

Who is online